Live data from Hacker News

Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

usatoday.com

1–10 of 76 posts

Re: Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

#2
I've known I can't really rely on Social Security to exist when I retire, in any notable form, but man, this is so dark. And it's just a start.

(Edit: I'm not certain either way! But it seems like too great a risk to rely on. And the prognosis seems not great! I have heard for decades needs serious help, and nothing seems to change. More broadly, with a few exceptions, I've seen overwhelmingly obstructionism and destruction of America in lifetime.)

Re: Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

#3
Yes, and the sky may fall tomorrow. The longer I live the more I read these sensationalist headlines designed to gin up angst and antagonize people's peace of mind.

Social Security's solvency has been the subject of much debate, but clearer heads point toward a graduation of the current system to include higher earners. That will accommodate the large aging population's demand. Case closed, easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Re: Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

#4

I've known I can't really rely on Social Security to exist when I retire, in any notable form, but man, this is so dark. And it's just a start. (Edit: I'm not certain either way! But it seems like too great a risk to rely on. And the prognosis seems not great! I have heard for decades needs serious help, and nothing seems to change. More broadly, with a few exceptions, I've seen overwhelmingly obstructionism and dest…

Honestly, the reporting has looked the same around this since the 1980s. I've read books from them referencing how Social Security was going to be bankrupt by the 90s, or the 2000s. The fact is that older people vote way more than younger people, so it stays funded; we will at worst pay for some of it out of income taxes.

Re: Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

#5

Yes, and the sky may fall tomorrow. The longer I live the more I read these sensationalist headlines designed to gin up angst and antagonize people's peace of mind. Social Security's solvency has been the subject of much debate, but clearer heads point toward a graduation of the current system to include higher earners. That will accommodate the large aging population's demand. Case closed, easy peasy lemon squeezy.

If nothing is done it’s a mathematical fact. The problem is that there are no plans to do anything yet, each administration and congress seeing it as too politically volatile to deal with, which means we will have a last minute suboptimal solution.

Obviously there are solutions. Maybe if America survives that long we might see one implemented.

Re: Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

#6

I've known I can't really rely on Social Security to exist when I retire, in any notable form, but man, this is so dark. And it's just a start. (Edit: I'm not certain either way! But it seems like too great a risk to rely on. And the prognosis seems not great! I have heard for decades needs serious help, and nothing seems to change. More broadly, with a few exceptions, I've seen overwhelmingly obstructionism and dest…

Honestly, the reporting has looked the same around this since the 1980s. I've read books from them referencing how Social Security was going to be bankrupt by the 90s, or the 2000s. The fact is that older people vote way more than younger people, so it stays funded; we will at worst pay for some of it out of income taxes.

The math has been constant, if you were reading reports saying it would hit the breaking point in the 90s or 2000s, you are either misremembering, confusing it with something else, or willfully distorting facts. Anyways, if you make claims like that you should take advantage of internet linking features and just provide your evidence directly vs a “I remember reading” anecdote.

There was a point where social security went from surplus to deficit in 2010. That wasn’t insolvency though since the federal government owed them for the previous surpluses they borrowed. 2033 is when the federal government no longer has to pay back money to SS and it is truly insolvent.

Re: Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

#7

I've known I can't really rely on Social Security to exist when I retire, in any notable form, but man, this is so dark. And it's just a start. (Edit: I'm not certain either way! But it seems like too great a risk to rely on. And the prognosis seems not great! I have heard for decades needs serious help, and nothing seems to change. More broadly, with a few exceptions, I've seen overwhelmingly obstructionism and dest…

It's much worse than that.

Governments, when faced with shortfalls in the government pension, will absolutely nationalize your 401k or IRA.

YOU, while attempting to responsibly take care of yourself, will absolutely be a piggybank to be raided. This has happened in numerous countries.

You wouldn't want to be selfish, would you? Sure, you forgo the midlife crisis sports car in favor of the Toyota Corolla you've been driving for years, but that's just tough. Shoulda lived for the now.

Re: Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

#8

Yes, and the sky may fall tomorrow. The longer I live the more I read these sensationalist headlines designed to gin up angst and antagonize people's peace of mind. Social Security's solvency has been the subject of much debate, but clearer heads point toward a graduation of the current system to include higher earners. That will accommodate the large aging population's demand. Case closed, easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Being convinced of disreality is a pervasive weapon that keeps being leveraged by the valent evil bad forces to make things worse and worse. Gladly tying the blindfold around your eyes should not be allowed to look as cool as this kind of post tries to exude.

Theres something so PKD about these fake realities, that have breached any and all containment, that people so readily deny any sense & sensibility. Just because. It's caused such huge disasters already. But it feels like still so many slumber on, that camp Wide Awake suffers so.

Brandolini's Law, the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle lurks below every reality based discussion, waiting for any chance to plunge thr pariticpants through to the unfathomable depths of unreality. It's a bitch of a structural advantage to be able to leave engagement and caring and discussion behind at any point, and plunge into that freezing alien other, to leave reality behind.

Re: Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

#9

I've known I can't really rely on Social Security to exist when I retire, in any notable form, but man, this is so dark. And it's just a start. (Edit: I'm not certain either way! But it seems like too great a risk to rely on. And the prognosis seems not great! I have heard for decades needs serious help, and nothing seems to change. More broadly, with a few exceptions, I've seen overwhelmingly obstructionism and dest…

This isn’t what my financial advisor told me and I doubt many others would, either.

Social Security is almost certainly going to exist in some form. The question is how much retirees will get from it and how that compares to the cost of living.

Excessive cynicism is often dangerous because it converts the mundanely pleasant reality into an enthralling doom and gloom scenario.

Of course, I’m not really saying that everyone in America is going to have a wonderful retirement. But if you’re like the other software engineers on this forum and you’re maxing out your 401k and have a mortgage, you’re almost certainly going to have a pretty enviable retirement.

Re: Newly retired couples may lose $16,900/year in Social Security in 2033

#10

Yes, and the sky may fall tomorrow. The longer I live the more I read these sensationalist headlines designed to gin up angst and antagonize people's peace of mind. Social Security's solvency has been the subject of much debate, but clearer heads point toward a graduation of the current system to include higher earners. That will accommodate the large aging population's demand. Case closed, easy peasy lemon squeezy.

If nothing is done it’s a mathematical fact. The problem is that there are no plans to do anything yet, each administration and congress seeing it as too politically volatile to deal with, which means we will have a last minute suboptimal solution. Obviously there are solutions. Maybe if America survives that long we might see one implemented.

Sure, if nothing is done. The trust fund redeeming its bonds is little different than the congress appropriating money for Social Security benefits; both come out of the current revenue of the USG. When the trust fund no longer has any bonds to redeem, there's nothing stopping congress from continuing to transfer money into Social Security to pay benefits at existing levels. They'll just have to vote on it rather than it happening automatically.
Post reply on HN